Editorial note: In the interest of full disclosure, the author of this piece is a board member of the Coon Creek Community Watershed Council.
VERNON COUNTY, Wis. – Vernon County has a long history of conservation and developing innovative ways of managing extreme environmental shifts that go back to the 1930’s. The first soil erosion demonstration project in the United States that literally revolutionized soil conservation and turned around the Dust Bowl was located right here in Coon Valley. In fact the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the federal agency that handles conservation to this day was born out of the Coon Creek project from what was known at that time as the Soil Erosion Service. In fact, this NRCS video about the history of the Coon Creek project is called “The Cradle of Conservation.” We are literally the center of universe when it comes to conservation in the United States.
So the irony of the NRCS coming back to our area in the last few years, not to develop new innovative approaches to another apparent huge environmental shift, but to actually remove some of their previous efforts, is not lost on people on the ground grappling with those changes.
Two public information meetings hosted by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) were held on January 18 to allow the public to give feedback on a plan to decommission almost all of the flood control dams in the Coon Creek and West Fork Kickapoo watersheds. About a hundred people showed up in both Coon Valley and Cashton on Thursday, January 18 to hear from NRCS State Engineer Steve Becker about the NRCS plan that was developed from studies done in both watersheds following the 2018 flooding. Those studies concluded that the 50 plus year old dams were at end of their design life and would be too expensive to replace, and therefore needed to be taken out to ensure there was not a catastrophic failure that could cause loss of life.
To be clear, the installation of the earthen flood control dams in our area and throughout the country was not a part of the original watershed projects of the 1930’s, but came later. During the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, NRCS would come back to our area and install those flood control dams know as PL566 dams. Vernon County has 22, PL566 dams that were built by NRCS and then turned over to local units of government for them to maintain for the next 50 years. 22 dams is about 25 percent of the 88 dams in the whole state of Wisconsin in one county. Monroe County has seven PL566 dams in the Coon Creek watershed and La Crosse County has two PL566 dams, bringing the total for the three counties to 32, or about 36 percent of the dams in Wisconsin. Nationwide there are 12,000 PL566 dams with the highest concentration in the state of Oklahoma. You can read our previous story on the history of the PL566 flood control dams and how the NRCS study came about in our previous story here.
Bob Micheel, Monroe County Conservationist greeted everyone who attended the Coon Valley meeting talking about how everyone has been impacted by recent flooding and everyone is tied to the watersheds one way or another.
“We’re all tied together based on what happened August 28, 2018,” said Micheel. “Flooding doesn’t exempt anyone, it doesn’t follow physical boundaries, cropland, roads, streets etcetera. Everybody was affected in some form of fashion that is sitting here today. Whether you’re a conservationist, emergency management director, a town patrolman, an elected official, we’re all here with a specific interest. But it all revolves around flooding. And so this is an opportunity to voice on what you see based on what the results of this study …. Today is an historic turning point as we look at decommissioning these structures, and then what we do in the future, so it’s important that everybody’s here participating.”
Below is a video of the Coon Valley meeting that includes the presentation on the dam decommissioning plan by NRCS State Engineer Steve Becker.
How we got here
The 2018 floods saw five dams fail between the two watersheds and that caused the NRCS to take notice and invest $1.8 million since 2019 to study the dams in both watersheds to determine why they failed, and if it made sense to keep investing in them.
“NRCS worked pretty closely with the county conservationists Ben Wojahn (Vernon County) Bob Micheel (Monroe County) and and Matt Hanewall (La Crosse County) to not take a knee jerk reaction to those failures,” said Becker “But to actually take a step back and reassess the functions and values of the flood control measures and kind of see where to go forward.”
Becker said once they received the funding for the study they enlisted several engineering firms and subcontractors from across the country that included about 40 geotechnical engineers, economists and other professionals to do a complete cost benefit analysis looking back, to see if the cost of dams over their life was worth it, and looking forward, to see if the cost of replacing them was worth it.
Becker walked the audiences through a detailed synopsis of the 1,000 plus page reports for both watersheds and gave a detailed summary of the five dam failures that took place in 2018. Becker said the failures were preceded by an extreme weather event which produced over 14 inches of rain in 24 hours and in some places over 11 inches of rain six hours. That resulted in what Becker said was a 400-500 year flood event. Becker said the weakness of the rock formations that dams use as their foundation for their support are loose karst formations and the intense pressure caused by the full dams resulted in internal erosion”.
Cost/benefit looking back – study finds the dams were break even at best
The study looked at all the costs associated with the dams including construction and maintenance over their life-span and compared that to what they protected. Things like crops and buildings and infrastructure, roads, bridges and human lives. The team gathered data on the all the storm events over 60 years and categorized them by 2, 5, 10, 50 and 100 year events. Then they modeled how much damage was prevented in each of those categories for all the dams.
The model showed the dams in the Coon Creek prevented about $12.2 million in damages and the dams cost about $13.3 million in construction and maintenance costs. Becker said the study allowed them to do a retrospective analysis of the dams that was not considered while they were in operation.
“You know the original 14 dams (in the Coon Creek) were built under a watershed agreement, that if federal funding was used to build them that the counties would be responsible for operating and maintaining them for 50 years,” said Becker. “If they failed to do so they would have to pay back the money to the treasury. Well that period (50 years) expired quite a while ago. And so during that period of time people really didn’t question whether the repair was of value, you just repaired it. Because there was an agreement to maintain these things for 50 years. There wasn’t a big investigation of whether the cost of the repair was equivalent to the benefits. But now that that 50 year economic evaluation period is over, the dams are under sole control and authority of the counties. So now there’s a choice to be made, do you repair them or not?”
NRCS State Conservation Engineer Steve Becker
“You know the original 14 dams were built under a watershed agreement, that if federal funding was used to build them that the counties would be responsible for operating and maintaining them for 50 years,” said Becker. “If they failed to do so they would have to pay back the money to the treasury. Well that (50 years) expired quite a while ago. And so during that period of time people really didn’t question whether the repair was of value, you just repaired it. There was an agreement to maintain these things for 50 years. There wasn’t a big investigation of whether the cost of the repair was equivalent to the benefits. But now that that 50 year economic evaluation period is over, the dams are under sole control and authority of the counties. So now there’s a choice to be made, do you repair them or not?”
Each dam and watershed was scored where a score of one or higher (1 to 1) meant the benefit outweighed the cost and a score below one means the costs were great than the benefits. The Coon Creek numbers came in under in under 1 at .92. That means the cost of protection from those 14 structures in the Coon Creek over a 60 year period was pretty much a wash. Costs were slightly more than the value of what they protected over that time. Cost benefit for the 14 structures in the Coon Creek, if you remove the recreation variable, drops the number to .41
Below is an estimate of what the nine dams in the West Fork saved or protected, or provided over their life in 2020 dollars. Note that the estimated recreational value of Jersey Valley over a 60 year period was $43.8 million. The conclusion in the West Fork was that most of the dams were not worth the cost but Jersey was worth it because of the recreational value. Ultimately NRCS has recommended rebuilding Jersey Valley because of the recreational value and has offered to pay almost all of the
Alternatives examined
Becker said the study looked at numerous solutions to flood control including doing nothing, repairing the existing dams, replacing the dams with new dams, upland land treatments, adding additional dams and replacing the large dams with small dams or farm ponds. All of these alternatives proved either too expensive or not effective in providing the same level of protection the dams had.
Repairing the dams was not an option because to repair them using technologies learned since they were built would be almost as costly as building new. Replacing with new dams was too expensive because they would have to built with new techniques learned in the last 60 years like using cutoff walls at the base of the dam to stop leakage and internal drain systems. Becker said in today’s dollars, because of the increased design standards, the benefit/cost ratio to buld all 14 dams in the Coon Creek came out to .1 to 1. Or 10 cents of benefit for every dollar spent. Or $5.6 million to $68 million in replacement and maintenance.
As a comparison, the original 14 dams in the Coon Creek cost about $81,000 on average, or about $580,000 each in 2020 dollars. To rebuild them to today’s standards would cost about $4.2 million per dam.
Decommissioning the preferred alternative
The decommissioning also did not have a positive cost/benefit ratio but since the other alternatives were not feasible, the dams need to be decommissioned to avoid future failures and prevent possible loss of life. The structures are well past their 50 year designed life and the liability associated with them means the need to be taken out of service.
Becker said the plan calls for “notching” the dams and stabilizing them so they are able to allow a 100 year event to flow without restriction and placing the excess material along the hillsides. Completely removing all the dam material was cost prohibitive because the process would require almost the same effort as building them with roads and materials.
Becker said sediment that has been collecting behind the dams for decades was a concern but they tested that sediment and the levels of contaminants as heavy metals was well below acceptable levels so they will not remove the sediment but simply allow it to disperse naturally over time.
Floodplain change
Becker said they estimated the change in floodplain for a 100 year flood, and the removal of the dams only increases the area by about 220 acres over the entire 32 miles of the stream. There were some questions from the public about how that could impact floodplain maps in the areas below the dams once they are removed.
Becker said he discussed potential adjustments to the floodplain with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources if the dams are decommissioned.
There is an online mapping tool that allows you to see how properties fall in various floodplain maps that is available here.
Identified homes and buildings that could see impact from decommissioning
Becker said they did identify homes, buildings and businesses that could see more water in a 100 year flood event compared to when all the dams were in place and functioning.
In the Coon Creek:
- House – 113 North Main St – Chaseburg – Max depth .9 feet
- Business – 95 Central Ave. – Coon valley – Max depth 1.1 feet
- Business – 99 Central Ave. – Coon Valley- Max depth .2 feet
- Garage with living space – 104 Central Ave – Coon valley – Max depth .6 feet
- House – 103 Anderson St – Coon Valley – Max depth 1.3 feet
- House – 501 Mahlum St – Coon Valley – Max depth 1.5 feet
Agricultural land losses
Becker said they tried to calculate how much the loss of potential cropland would be worth if the floodplain is increased without the dams. The calculated that 228 acres increase in floodplain x 9,000 per acre for 50 years and that came to a total value of $2 million, which is less than the cost of one dam. Becker pointed out that area would be a very narrow strip of land running along 35 miles.
Climate change considered
Becker said they did contract with UW-Madison to calculate the change in weather over the last 15 years, which has shown an increase in severe weather events, and see of that changed any of their modeling. Becker said the result was their was an increase in the average 100 year event that increased from 7.5 inches of rain in 24 hours to 8.2 inches in 24 hours. That was not enough to impact the economics of comparing the cost benefit of the alternatives.
Archeological impact
In the Coon Creek Watershed there were five sites with some archeological findings but they were not deemed to be significant. At three of the five sites there was enough “density and integrity” to be archeologically significant that a phase to investigation was recommended. However, Becker said they recommended to move forward with decommissioning because the sites were impacted by floods prior the dams being in place, and the sites would likely be damaged more by a dam breech, so removing the dams was seem as less of an impact than leaving them.
Potential loss of life
Coon Creek Watershed
Becker said they calculated how many people could be at risk if there was a dam breach. The data showed that there would an estimated 11 lives at risk if all 14 dams all failed at the same time. That was based on miles of road, homes and possible recreational users in the floodplain. Becker said they did not go to the next level of analysis which be calculating loss of life from the number of people at risk is difficult to calculate.
Other alternatives show promise
Becker did say that upland land treatment and small farm ponds did show promise and should be explored and a coordinated effort could possibly reach the level of flood protection the dams had provided. But Becker said those approaches were better being pursued through other programs like USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) or the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). Becker said trying to do those practices through the NRCS Watershed program would complicated and cumbersome require environmental studies and 50 year commitments from private land owners. Pursing the practices through exiting USDA programs could be done much faster, and those programs have been receiving much higher levels of funding from legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act.
“It’s an admirable objective and a worthwhile one,” said Becker. “And the county land and water departments and the NRCS have been working on land management, land treatment conservation programs for years. And it is an effective way to increase infiltration and reduce runoff. But programs have limits and the watershed program is not set up to engage to fund to economically justify, and run individual projects through this in order to secure watershed funding on all that private land. Wherever we would put a practice on the ground under this program the county would have to secure an easement and ensure that it was maintained for 50 years. That’s pretty high level of commitment. The recommendation is to use the program that’s most appropriate, and there are several under the USDA umbrella.”
Becker said encouraging, and or incentivizing, the use of practices like contour strips, prairie strips, no-till, cover crops, grass waterways and woodland practices can all have significant impact on reducing flooding. Becker said it was difficult to model the various land treatments so instead the used a model that converted all the ag land (23,222 acres) in the watershed to un-pastured grass land, which would be an unlikely scenario, but would show a best case scenario for conservation changes.
In the Coon Creek Watershed the model showed converting 100 percent of ag land to grass would have an impact on flood events, up to a point.
“The model shows that the flows are reduced,” said Becker “No dams, with all grass converted to cropland shows a very effective flood control up to about the 50 year level. And then the effect isn’t quite so prominent.”
Becker said they also did an analysis of what converting 100 percent of cropland to grassland would do to stream flow at the State Highway 14 bridge in Coon Valley. Becker said the stream flow without the dams at the bridge in a 100 year event would be almost identical if all that land was converted, but he emphasized again that that is not likely to happen but there are a lot of practices that can be implemented to reach some portion of that maximum reduction.
“So you can look at the 100 year event,” said Becker. “That if you compared the flow depth for the 100 year with all the dams in place, its at 15.1. But if you got rid of the dams, and replaced with grassland on all cropland, you have the same effect. Which is interesting because you got a little bit different outcome in the West Fork Kickapoo watershed, but it shows that that’s effective. It’s an effective means of flood control.”
State NRCS Conservation Engineer Steve Becker
“So you can look at the 100 year event,” said Becker. “That if you compared the flow depth for the 100 year with all the dams in place, its at 15.1. But if you got rid of the dams, and replaced with grassland on all cropland, you have the same effect. Which is interesting because you got a little bit different outcome in the West Fork Kickapoo watershed, but it shows that that’s effective. It’s an effective means of flood control.”
Becker said they did turn part of their analysis to Eric Booth a Research Scientist with the Department of Agronomy at UW- Madison who is developing interactive software that would allow the user to make changes in the watershed to see what the effect would be.
“Looking at peak flows once again,” said Becker. “It kind of bears out that in this watershed (Coon Creek) with land treatment, actually has the possibility of offsetting the large dams. It’s just a herculean effort to make that type of conversion… “
State NRCS Conservation Engineer Steve Becker
“Looking at peak flows once again,” said Becker. “It kind of bears out that in this watershed with land treatment, actually has the possibility of offsetting the large dams. It’s just a herculean effort to make that type of conversion… there are some good software programs out there to look at everything in between the current condition and everything grassed to look at the effect, and see if there is an optimal performance level where agriculture can get along with the floodplain.”
Booth said the research he has been engaged in does look at that kind of large scale conversion to other practices like managed grazing as well as others, but there is still a lot of work to do to study what the economics of that kind of conversion would look like for producers. Booth also said there are a number of producers that are already using those kinds of practices successful in the watershed.
Small dams
The other promising alternative to offset the loss of the dams were small dams or “farm ponds. Becker said they looked at this alternative and some of the modeling did show a real potential at flood mitigation in certain watersheds. Placing 11 small dams in Coon Creek Watershed where the to replace the Luckasson dam was produced only about a 19 percent reduction peak flow versus a 55 percent reduction for the dam.
Installing 11 dams to replace the Mlsna dam in the West Fork Kickapoo produces a 50 percent reduction in peak flow versus a 75 percent reduction for the dam. Becker again emphasized these would be small ponds installed on a voluntary basis in agreement with land owners that would likely include a cost share. Becker said the would only be effective with a 10 or 25 year event.
“But they do have an effect and they could be a part of the toolbox,” said Becker.
Public comments
Matt Canter is a farmer in the Coon Creek Watershed and is a board member with the Coon Creek Community Watershed Council asked about doing some of the other promising alternatives combined with the preferred alternative.
“The question is a good one,” said Becker. “Is it possible to blend the preferred alternative with dam removal and make major land management, land use changes? The answer would be, yes. But it’s just really hard to mix that the land management improvements into this program (NRCS Watershed Program) with the given timeline. And the environmental and socioeconomic investigations we would have to do to fund it under this program, by covering a lot of those things….anything funded under this plan had has to go through a rigorous environmental review. Things that are done under EQIP you could do tomorrow. You can come in and sign up for a farm pond or incentives for land management practices at anytime. You can come in and under EQIP, RCCP, all of that work on a national level was evaluated under a programmatic review. There is not a lot of additional time and attention needed to justify the economics or the environmental impacts. You can just run the program. Sign up, you get ranked, and you get funded within a 12 to 24 month cycle.”
Becker said to do the same or similar things like increased conservation or small ponds through the NRCS Watershed Program would be much more complicated and difficult.
“To run it under this program (NRCS Watershed Program) it has to go through the same rigor that was demonstrated in the slides,” said Becker. “And that same landowner that we would encounter in 2020 to do strip cropping on 600 acres would still have to be interested four years later. To the point where he’s willing to sign an agreement with the counties to maintain those strips for 50 years. It’s just a program that just has a higher threshold for involvement. It’s just on private lands. It’s too on unwieldy on land that’s leasing, the land control issues, the level of interest. Some people are farming year to year based on what the bank will allow to them to borrow. They’re just not capable of making commitments at a 50 year level that are required out of this particular program.”
I asked Becker about the need for coordination of the promising alternatives like small dams and increased conservation practices that show the potential for replacing the amount of retention that that dams provided. I asked, given that the dams are going away and flooding seems to be increasing, and numerous communities have moved, and are continuing to move right now along the Kickapoo at a cost of $10 – $15 million a community, is there some way to coordinate these other practices on a larger scale?
“I think there’s a, to create a new vision for land management in Coon Creek Watershed would be a likely outcome out of this study,”
State NRCS Conservation Engineer Steve Becker
“I think there’s a, to create a new vision for land management in Coon Creek Watershed would be a likely outcome out of this study,” said Becker. “But this study, we tried to kind of take a manageable bite out of flooding in the watershed. We tried to take a manageable bite, and the manageable bite was, do we replace these 14 dams or not? And comes down to hard economics. And that’s kind of like I think back in the 60s, it’s just my, or 58, my oppression was the incentive there was to do what you could and the engineers design these dams and when they were done they slipped the plan over the economist and said justify it. This time around the economists are driving the bus and the engineers are riding shotgun. And it’s just very difficult to ignore a benefit cost ratio that’s so low.”
I asked for clarification on where the vision will come from and who will coordinate the work that seems to be falling to non-government entities like the Coon Creek Community Watershed Council and other conservation organizations, which historically has been taken on by the federal government. I asked Becker if there could be a recommendation in the final report that said there should be a commitment to coordination and funding at the federal level to do the work in the watersheds.
“If the dams are kind of doing their job, and now that it’s discovered they’re not, it’s sort of a catalyst to say, well what can be done? And you get two choices. You stay out of the floodplain, or you commit more federal money to land treatment. I think the federal programs that are available, but maybe not as orchestrated as they need to be. Hopefully this will be the catalyst for that”
State NRCS Conservation Engineer Steve Becker
“I think that portion of the report that was committed to land use changes can be used to justify the movement of federal funds through EQIP special initiative and the RCCP program,” said Becker. “Which now pays technical assistance fees, you know, take on the design and implementation process. I think it has the potential to be a catalyst where one wasn’t there before. Why would you? If the dams are kind of doing their job, and now that it’s discovered they’re not, it’s sort of a catalyst to say, well what can be done? And you get two choices. You stay out of the floodplain, or you commit more federal money to land treatment. I think the federal programs that are available, but maybe not as orchestrated as they need to be. Hopefully this will be the catalyst for that.”
I asked Becker how the report will help foster that coordination at the federal level.
“When the record of decision is rendered on this project I know our agency will take it a step farther,” said Becker. “The watersheds are missing some things. Coordination, demonstration farms, and things that are in other parts of the state that aren’t here, and I hope we can kind of be a part of that.”
“When the record of decision is rendered on this project I know our agency will take it a step farther,” said Becker. “The watersheds are missing some things. Coordination, demonstration farms, and things that are in other parts of the state that aren’t here, and I hope we can kind of be a part of that.”
State NRCS Conservation Engineer Steve Becker
When asked about modeling for the possible impact of conservation practices implemented on to forested land Becker said their model did not account for changes in forest land.
Eric Booth is a researcher with UW-Madison and has been studying practices that could be used on agricultural and woodland acres to increase water infiltration rates. Booth said half the acres in the watershed are forested, and there is a lot of potential for management practices to help mitigate flooding.
“We’ve been primarily focused on ag land,” said Booth. “Because there’s a lot of management that happens daily, monthly, seasonally, so it makes sense it’s a starting place. But I think there are a lot of potential practices that can be done on the forest lands. There’s a rich history of experimental monitoring in this region going back to the 30s, and then later in the 60s, and 70s, and there were some pretty interesting studies just showing, you know, putting some of these dams right at the top of that hill slope where it’s fractured bedrock right underneath that could allow a lot of infiltration to happen. I think there’s just a lot of unknown still, and so we’re hoping to start up more of an experimental monitoring network, and talk with the Forest Service, and the DNR about starting up something.”
One question was about the removal of terraces that had been installed as part of conservation practices in the 1930s. Monroe County Conservationist Bob Micheel said there have been changes over time and there has been a shift in priorities in certain agencies.
“What I’ve seen over my career, and it really comes down to the conservation planning that is not a priority in certain other offices anymore,” said Micheel. “It’s about programs and getting that money out to the projects. And so we did that. We’re not out on the farms working with on their conservation plan, keeping the tolerable soil losses, we only stumble on that (removal of conservation practices) when we have other programs other needs to go out there and addressing.”
“So the observation is valid,” said Becker. “But the reasons land owners have to take out the terraces, and a lot of the strip cropping has to do with their operation equipment size, and things like that. But what Bob is saying is they’re seems to be a shift in priorities where we’re not really promoting or marketing the replacement of any of those losses either.”
Vernon County Conservationist Ben Wojahn said practices like terraces are important but they are land owner dependent.
“Terraces are an important tool in the toolbox,” said Wojahn. “And as we’re moving forward along with Prairie buffers, and other ways to slow down runoff, terraces do need to be looked at again. But it basically comes down to private land. Right? They have their choice. No one here is dictating anything beyond like a 10 year operation and maintenance plan. So we can’t we can’t make people keep those terraces on on private land.”
Tucker Gretebeck has a farm in the Coon Creek Watershed and a member of the Coon Creek Community Watershed Council. Gretebeck asked if there will be more resources available to county conservation offices that are already short staffed to help design and build small ponds and implement other practices. Gretebeck the small dams have shown they can be effective.
“These small dams are phenomenal,” said Gretebeck. “You put them up and then with the right practices, all of a sudden we’re building on something going back to the 1930s, and maybe farming field by field again instead of farm by farm.”
Coon Creek Watershed farmer Tucker Gretebeck
“These small dams are phenomenal,” said Gretebeck. “You put them up and then with the right practices, all of a sudden we’re building on something going back to the 1930s, and maybe farming field by field again instead of farm by farm.”
Becker acknowledged county and state conservation offices are understaffed.
“I think we need to regroup to figure out how to get some money in here to get staffed up and promoted,” said Becker. “And they are pushing some programs like RCPP where you can hire local. Where federal money can be moved into the county’s to support technical assistance. Money for hiring people to do the work I think that might be one Ave. But your observations are valid that there’s no one to do it.”
La Crosse County Conservationist Matt Hanewall said there have been changes, but there are also opportunities.
“And I’ve listened to producers and land owners like many of you in this room tell me the change is unbelievable from where I was with this row crop system, to what I’ve done now with mixed species cover crops, and more rotational grazing, the water that comes off this farm is just, the changes are dramatic. And so I think that’s inspiration for me.”
La Crosse County Conservationist Matt Hanewall
“I think this is a juncture,” said Hanewall. “A moment in time where I think we need to stop and pause and think about the opportunities in front of us. We talked about tax rate changes. There’s been discussion about ties to federal crop insurance and so forth, but the conservation aspect and what we started in the 30s here, while the cropping systems have changed and we can’t expect to not change with them, the testimonials from those of you in this room….of what you’ve done on your farm with the conversions of putting in the small ponds and converting to systems that build organic matter from all more nutrient cycling. And I’ve listened to producers and land owners like many of you in this room tell me the change is unbelievable from where I was with this row crop system, to what I’ve done now with mixed species cover crops, and more rotational grazing, the water that comes off this farm is just, the changes are dramatic. And so I think that’s inspiration for me.”
Coon Creek Community Watershed Council president Nancy Wedwick said their group came together following the the 2018 floods because it seems no one else we stepping in to solve the problem of flooding. Wedwick said they have been working with the county conservationists and other organizations and asked for a pause in the process to consider other options.
“What we would really like to do his work together to meet the original scope or intent for this project,” said Wedwick. “Which was to address flood control and flood damage mitigation, and that became the primary purpose, and things got narrowed down to just looking at the dams. And what happens if the dam fails. So let’s protect against just the dam breach rather than just let’s look at the whole flooding picture. And I do think that’s where we need to be. I know you explained benefit cost ratio. Which this project doesn’t meet. I know that you all justify it with the loss of life potential things like that, which is good. Were there benefit cost analysis on the other options?”
“I think the study is narrow in scope,” said Becker. “Right? It deals primarily with what we know. And what we have control over, which is the county has control over, is the footprints of the dams. And we know the dams have potential to fail and so this the study had a lot to do with the disposition of the dams, and it had less to do with what can we do for upland land management treatment in terms conservation practices, farm ponds, strip cropping, and whatever. And the study didn’t dive into that because we don’t hardly have any control over it at all on private land.”
“The councils across the state have been making differences. I can’t help but know … back in the 30s it only took half of the farms to make a huge difference. And actually it became even less than that. Not all of them continued to comply with what they were supposed to do so it doesn’t take everybody. It’s not insurmountable. We can work together to transform this landscape, and maybe part of the way to do that again … there’s a partner out here in terms of the folks that are interested in helping.”
Coon Creek Community Watershed Council President Nancy Wedwick
“So you have these things called watershed councils,” said Wedwick. And they are made-up of people that are interested in conservation and want to implement practices on their property. Ours is not just farmers. We have expanded beyond that to include anybody and everybody would have an interest in the Coon Creek Watershed. So if you live in a village, if you live out of a Township, if you live in Virginia somewhere and you’re interested in this watershed you can absolutely join. And we try to address beyond just conservation for the farmer we’re very excited about Eric (Booth) beginning to look into the forestry practices and things that can be done there focusing on urban practices as well….we have already been making differences. The councils across the state have been making differences. I can’t help but know …back in the 30s it only took half of the farms to make a huge difference. And actually it became even less than that. Not all of them continued to comply with what they were supposed to do so it doesn’t take everybody. It’s not insurmountable. We can work together to transform this landscape, and maybe part of the way to do that again … there’s a partner out here in terms of the folks that are interested in helping.”
Becker said the report was narrow in scope but is hopefully that its shortcomings can be used to leverage other solutions. Becker said there are funds out there to address some of the other solutions.
“So hopefully the weaknesses in the report make as compelling a statement as the strengths of the report, and maybe it is kind of a rally point. And I don’t mind the report being used that way, that look, they’re shortcomings. So what are you gonna do about it? I think it is a good rallying point. So I appreciate your comments. I do.”
State NRCS Conservation Engineer Steve Becker
“But I do feel like it’s (federal money) not necessarily directed in the right place,” said Becker. “At least not at the moment. It hasn’t been directed toward the staff time that’s needed to get to replace the terraces, to market where the farm ponds could go, to provide the support with the counties to move that federal money. But I think the money’s there. The IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) moved a lot, like an extra $20 million into Wisconsin. So, hopefully the weaknesses in the report make as compelling a statement as the strengths of the report, and maybe it is kind of a rally point. And I don’t mind the report being used that way, that look, they’re shortcomings. So what are you gonna do about it? I think it is a good rallying point. So I appreciate your comments. I do.”
Becker was asked if there are programs that can focus on one particular watershed.
“What concentrates it in the watershed is when you can provide measurable outcomes,” said Becker. “Because I think Congress, and probably the public in general, is demanding a little more results driven outcomes for the money they spend. So, I think the modeling that was done in this study, and some of the watershed models that are available lend itself to a sponsor picking it up and directing money into the watershed, and I think this only supports the reason to do it. I think it can be cited as a major reason why the money should be targeted into Coon Creek.”
Eric Weninger who is a farmer in the watershed and a Member of the Coon Creek Community Watershed Council pointed out the the Stories from the Flood project and the oral histories that have been collected are often asking what will happen next. Weninger said the feeling on the ground is people feel they are being left to find solutions on their own and asked if there is a way to coordinate the resources that Becker mentioned.
“People are asking for this,” said Weninger. “By signing on May 1 and not having a plan moving forward, what does that tell everyone? Can the preferred path at least have a coordination, at least saying we should coordinate funds, to coordinate efforts? We should look at this. Put some money towards developing a plan that’s community driven.”
“I was led to believe that when you start getting 5 or 6-7 inches of rain that conservation isn’t gonna matter. I mean, you get 11 inches of rain in six hours, does it matter what you’re growing? And I think with the modeling kind of shows us now, that’s not correct, it can have an effect on some of these larger events. And so it holds promise that something can be done. I think the federal money is there. I think it can be a rallying point for the Coon Creek Watershed Coalition in conjunction with Monroe and La Crosse land and water, to actually start targeting some of this federal money for a very specific reason, because it can be a reasonable replacement for dams, if it’s done right, it’s done to adequate scope.”
State NRCS Conservation Engineer Steve Becker
“I think there is a void that needs to be filled with coordinated leadership on it,” said Becker. “I feel the county conservationists can provide it. I think the federal government can provide the money. These RCCP grants that I’ve seen are pushing $10 million that you can put into a single watershed. That should move the needle a little ways. And the report at least shows why. I was led to believe that when you start getting 5 or 6-7 inches of rain that conservation isn’t gonna matter. I mean, you get 11 inches of rain in six hours, does it matter what you’re growing? And I think with the modeling kind of shows us now, that’s not correct, it can have an effect on some of these larger events. And so it holds promise that something can be done. I think the federal money is there. I think it can be a rallying point for the Coon Creek Watershed Coalition in conjunction with Monroe and La Crosse land and water, to to actually start targeting some of this federal money for a very specific reason, because it can be a reasonable replacement for dams, if it’s done right, it’s done to adequate scope.”
Becker was asked if leaving the dams in place was an option. Becker said now that it is known that the dams are likely to fail in an extreme event there is a liability that is known, and leaving then in place really is not an option. Ultimately, the decision is up to the counties but Becker said if you include the 1978 dam failure that means there is a six in 23 chance of failure.
“If I told any of you there was six chances in 23 your plane would crash, would you get on it?” asked Becker.
Eric Booth asked Becker again if there was a chance to include a statement of addendum in the report that made a stronger statement about coordination of other solutions. We asked if the report could include a statement that legislators could point to that states the other options are viable and worth funding and coordinating.
“That is a point well taken,” said Becker. “In its draft form, to take a stronger position on summarizing the land treatment effects. Anytime you read a research report from UW at the end it says for further research. Right? And I think it’s probably missing. We could probably build that in. Point well taken, and we’ll make that correction.”
State NRCS Conservation Engineer Steve Becker
“That is a point well taken,” said Becker. “In its draft form, to take a stronger position on summarizing the land treatment effects. Anytime you read a research report from UW at the end it says for further research. Right? And I think it’s probably missing. We could probably build that in. Point well taken, and we’ll make that correction.”
NRCS will take public comments about the decommissioning plan until Feb. 20. All comments will be addressed and entered into the official record for project managers to consider. To register your comment online you can go to the NRCS PEIS website.
Add comment